OpenDART MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what information is provided, without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or any constraints on the corp_code parameter. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is reasonably concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one documenting the parameter. There's no unnecessary verbiage, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose first. The structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter documentation more naturally rather than as a separate Args section, but overall it's efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that there's an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain output format. However, for a tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and many similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context, differentiation from alternatives, and deeper parameter guidance. The presence of an output schema raises the baseline, but significant gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description includes an Args section that documents the single parameter (corp_code) with a brief explanation in Korean ('고유번호(8자리)' meaning 'unique number (8 digits)'). However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantic context (it's an 8-digit unique identifier), but doesn't explain where to obtain this code, format requirements, or validation rules. This provides marginal value beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '임원·주요주주 소유보고 - 임원·주요주주 특정증권등 소유상황보고서 내 소유보고 정보를 제공합니다.' This translates to providing ownership report information from executive/major shareholder ownership status reports. It specifies the resource (ownership reports) and the scope (executives/major shareholders), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_major_stockholding' or 'get_largest_shareholder' which might cover similar domains.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools in the disclosure/financial reporting domain (like get_major_stockholding, get_largest_shareholder, get_executive_status), there's no indication of what distinguishes this specific ownership report tool from others that might cover related information. No prerequisites or contextual constraints are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.